Wow, lots of ignorance on display in here. There really isn’t any way to “win” the argument, because fair use is decided on a case by case basis, but the ad is a clear and obvious parody of the original, which is really important. That it is a commercial use is relevant, but not critical. Commercial parodies have cleared the bar before (someone else mentioned the 2LiveCrew ‘Pretty Woman’ parody. Perfect example.) Performances of actual covers that are not parodies and the use of entire unmodified songs without permission don’t fall under fair use and I fail to see how they are relevant to this situation at all.
6 Likes
I totally respect Adam Yauch and the Beastie Boys’ position that their music should not be used for advertising. Which is a bummer, because this is completely awesome.
8 Likes
Yes, because nobody who is rich ever worked their fingers to the bone to get that way. It’s all luck and lottery. And willing other people’s money isn’t the same as requesting some parameters for your intellectual creativity.
1 Like
That’s it, Erik. I’m cutting you out of my will now, for that.
8 Likes
Thanks for this.
To summarize and expand:
-
Commercial uses can be fair use
-
Weird Al pays for the rights to parody because he chooses to, but in many cases he could probably avoid the license and rely on a fair use defense
-
The compulsory license to record a cover only extends to faithful renditions, not rewrites – and it doesn’t extend to synch rights (the right to add music to a video)
-
The Beastie Boys by no means limited themselves to unidentifiable samples; their mainstay were samples that worked specifically because they were identifiable (“just to watch him die,” “I’m going back to New York City, I do believe I’ve had enough,” “Stop that train,” and so on)
-
The fact that Adam Yauch objected to a use has no bearing on whether that use is fair. Fair use is, by definition, a use made without permission
7 Likes
Imagining we have no memory of these particular circumstances, lets pretend that McDonalds rewrote the words to a beasties boys song and used it to sell happy meals. This article would be about how correct the beasties lawyers would be to be going after them.
Just because ‘we’ approve of this particular product shouldn’t overrule a musicians ability to control their music. I’ve had my own songs licensed loads of times for commercial use, and I would be pissed if someone did it without my permission, ‘remixing’ or not. If it’s just a random fun video, then have it.
I think the makers of this product were just banking on the fact that righteous indignation would ensue based on the stupid misogynistic nature of the original tune and they could get away with being lazy and not just spending a few bucks and having someone write something vaguely reminiscent of this tune that wouldn’t be anywhere close to a blatant ripoff. This song is so hokey and basic anyway, any song/jingle writer should be able to work one up in a half an hour
16 Likes
I would really, really like to think that the B Boys were all like, ‘Hey, this is fucking sweet, right? How do we help these guys get as much exposure as possible? Hey, I know…’
But I know reality sucks more than that.
Source
: A remix is a song that has been edited to sound different from the original version. For example, the pitch of the singers’ voice or the tempo might be changed, it might be made shorter or longer, or it might have the voice duplicated to create a duet.
This is a parody not a remix. If the Beastie Boys weren’t asked permission for fair use then they are have every right to issue a takedown.
2 Likes
But did the Beasties own copyright to their early work? Many artists don’t - it was signed away to the studio.
1 Like
Is it the Beasties and their lawyers? Or is it Island/Def Jam? The actors might not even be the actual band here, depending on who owns rights to the song.
Also, the composer of “Wicked” has stated that lawyers for their production told him he could use a maximum of 7 notes from “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” without risking an infringement lawsuit. So apparently a melody can be the sole source of a copyright claim.
5 Likes
“Cause I’m a specializer, rhyme reviser,
Ain’t selling out to advertisers,
What you get is what you see …
And you won’t see me out there advertising”
- Triple Trouble, The Beastie Boys
4 Likes
Cute ad. But is it really wrong for the Beastie Boys to want credit where credit is due? I can’t imagine they would attempt to gouge this toy company, but it seems clear that they do deserve compensation. And also, as great as this commercial may seem it is still very much perpetuating that a females core worth is in her looks by only having pretty child actresses. I remember being a little girl once. This entire thing pisses me off in general.
3 Likes
That people may like and approve of this ad, and that people may not like the original song, are two concepts that have no bearing on the actual legality or ethics of using the Beastie Boys music.
Ethically, the Beastie Boys don’t approve of their music being used for advertising. This is specifically at the request of Adam Yauch.
Legally, if you don’t have the appropriate permit for commercial use of someone else’s art, then you don’t have the right right to use it.
So, both ethically and legally, the Beastie Boys are absolutely in the right for challenging this use of their music. And further, if they don’t challenge it, they weaken not only their own rights but the rights of all other artists.
That’s really all I can see to this issue.
6 Likes
Of course you can copyright a melody…or better yet, you can register MUSIC and LYRICS as separate entities with BMI or ASCAP.
The US Office of Copyright asks detailed questions regarding “musical works” and whether a person is the “true author” of a song/album/composition - sometimes the copyright office will send back forms if it’s unclear whether it’s music and lyrics that you composed or not.
About a million music copyright infringement cases have been filed concerning subtle (or stupidly blatant) differences in notes and melody in songs…the “My Sweet Lord”/“He’s So Fine” case to begin with (I think George lost)
The advent of sampling in the early 80s threw a wrench into the entire established music industry. One of the bigger early sampling cases was Volman and Kaylan’s (Flo and Eddie’s) suit against De La Soul over use of a Turtles sample…eh, ancient history, they got a sizable settlement… Volman and Kaylan have another very current legal assertion against SIRIUS RADIO concerning copyright violations
Blaming the remaining BEASTIE BOYS for trying to uphold their legal copyright rights is like blaming a bear for breaking into trash cans for food. It’s only natural.
But…melodies can be copyrighted (and dats the name o’ dat tune)
3 Likes
Working one’s fingers to the bone and getting stinking rich off other people’s backs aren’t mutually exclusive by any means. Wall St is full of hard-working parasites.
Ever stop to wonder what fraction of our activity is actually a good idea?
Honour the Slack.
3 Likes
I think Weird Al asks the artists before he follows though on recording his parodies. I know several pop stars without senses of humour have turned down his requests…COOLIO had some problems with “Amish Paradise” even though COOLIO took “Amish Paradise” from Stevie Wonder’s “Pastime Paradise” - it’s all so incestuous!
2 Likes
The hardest of the hardcore sticklers concerning these copyright questions is GAIL ZAPPA. She’s thoughtfully (mostly) kept her hubby Frank’s music at arm’s length and is careful how his works are used and distributed. Some Zappa fanatics hate her because of it (fans of anything always think they know better!)…I think it’s wise, considering the pure value of Zappa’s unique music. Zappa himself was in front of the curve and almost psychic when it came to sampling and copyright matters
2 Likes
The block quote portion of your post would make more sense if “read the complaint” were a hyperlink. I kind of felt bossed around on that last line as it is 
Yeah, this isn’t the letter U and the numeral 2. This is an unfair attempt at passing commercialism off as ‘intertubz approved’. Nice try. Fuck ads, by the way.
2 Likes
Well, the ad did work. I’m NEVER buying a thing from this company.
2 Likes
